Standing Committee G

Mr. Win Griffiths

Education Bill

9.55 am

Graham Brady: On a point of order, Mr. Griffiths. First may I welcome you to the Chair? I am sure that you will chair our proceedings with the same grace and wisdom as Mrs. Adams did on our first day. I am tempted also to welcome the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) who has arrived just in time.
 My point of order relates to a housekeeping matter. We sat on Tuesday between 8 pm and 10 pm. I was about to respond to an intervention when we suspended and it would have been enormously helpful to me, and possibly to other hon. Members, if the Hansard for those proceedings had been available on time. I understand that it was prepared, but for some reason it is not available in the Committee Room. I should be grateful for your guidance on why that is the case and for any reassurance you can give us that that will not recur.

Irene Adams: I thank the hon. Member for that point of order. We are trying to get copies of Hansard to the Committee as soon as possible. We do not know what the delay is, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the House officials are trying to ensure that we receive them as soon as possible. May I also draw the revised selection list to the Committee's attention? Schedule 1, to which no amendments have been tabled, was omitted from yesterday's version and that has now been corrected.

Eleanor Laing: On a point of order, Mr. Griffiths. The monitor has been showing that this Committee would start at 9.30 am. We had further information that it would start at 9.50 am. The correct time was 9.55 am. I merely raise the point so that it can be looked into somewhere along the line, as it was rather confusing. I know that we do not always know when we will end, but it helps to know when we start.

Irene Adams: Yes, it was clearly confusing, if that is possible. I may have added to the confusion a little by arriving precisely on time. I had not intended to be so close to the wire.
 Amendment proposed [11 December]: No. 11, in 4, line 25, leave out ''may'', and insert ''shall''.—[Mr. Brady.] 
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made. 
 The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments: No. 68, in page 4, line 26, leave out ''any curriculum provision'' and insert—
''any of such curriculum provisions as shall be prescribed by order approved under the affirmative resolution procedure''.
 No. 44, in page 4, line 26, after second ''provision'', insert— 
''or such other areas as the Secretary of State may determine following representations from a qualifying body or qualifying school''.
 No. 12, in page 4, line 28, leave out subsections (1)(b) and (c) and insert— 
''(b) designate the modifications of any curriculum provision or pay and conditions provision as being available as of right, and may— 
 (c) designate any curriculum provision or pay and conditions provisions as attracting discretionary exemption''.
 No. 45, in page 4, line 28, after second ''provision'', insert— 
''or such other areas as the Secretary of State may determine following representations from a qualifying body or qualifying school''.
 No. 46, in page 4, line 31, after ''provision'', insert— 
''or such other areas as the Secretary of State may determine following representations from a qualifying body or qualifying school''.
 No. 47, in page 4, line 33, after ''provision'', insert— 
''or such other areas as the Secretary of State may determine following representations from a qualifying body or qualifying school''.
 No. 35, in page 4, line 33, at end insert— 
''except insofar as every school must demonstrate that the curriculum it offers remains consistent with the objectives of the national curriculum.''
 No. 66, in page 5, line 9, at end insert— 
''(f) provide for the manner in which statutory provisions in relation to the inspection of schools, and the publication of information relating to school performance shall be applied in relation to a school in respect of which an order under subsection 2 is made''.
 No. 13, in page 5, line 13, leave out ''(1)(c)'', and insert ''(1)(b)''. 
 No. 14, in page 5, line 24, leave out ''(1)(b)'', and insert ''(1)(c)''. 
 No. 81, in page 5, line 30, at end insert— 
 ''(6) In so far as regulations made under this section relate to a curriculum provision they shall, in addition to providing for an exemption or modification, require persons responsible for the delivery of the curriculum in any school to have regard to the need to deliver a broad and balanced curriculum in that school.''

Graham Brady: I shall briefly conclude my remarks on amendment No. 66. As I said, I was not able to refresh my memory from the printed record about the intervention that came immediately before we suspended. However, my memory is almost equal to that of the elephant that we discussed at length. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough had egged me on by saying that the amendment that I was minded not to press, after a very helpful reassurance from the Minister, was more important than I had realised. He raised important points about the value and the centrality, of school inspections and the reporting procedure. However, I was reassured by the Minister's earlier remarks that proper arrangements
 would be in place for inspection and reporting of performance data. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Phil Willis: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 4, line 33, at end insert—
 '(1A) The Secretary of State shall exercise his powers under this section with regard to the desirability of maintaining an effective national framework of pay and conditions for school teachers, so that all maintained schools are able to recruit, retain and motivate sufficient teachers of the required quality'.

Irene Adams: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 34, in page 4, line 33, at end insert—
 '(1A) The Secretary of State shall continue to exercise his powers under all provisions of this section so as to promote the professional development of teachers, including development in relation to standards determined by him in an order under section 118 as criteria for entry into a particular class of teachers for purposes of remuneration.'.
 No. 79, in page 4, line 33, at end insert— 
 '(1A) In so far as regulations made under this section relate to a pay or conditions provision they shall in addition to providing for an exemption or modification make provision also for the determination of the relevant pay or conditions by means of negotiation between relevant bodies and representatives of those to whom different pay and conditions are to be applied.'.
 No. 52, in page 5, line 30, at end insert— 
 '(6) Any order under subsection (2) must contain the following provisions of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions document— 
 (a) main pay scale, 
 (b) threshold and 
 (c) differentials between mainscale and leadership group and between headteacher and the rest of the leadership group.'.

Phil Willis: Thank you, Mr. Griffiths. I welcome you to the Chair. Your reputation for fairness and decency precedes you and I am sure that we shall enjoy your chairmanship enormously. I apologise for being 30 seconds late. The reason was the confusion to which the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) referred.

Graham Brady: The hon. Gentleman has added to my confusion since when I arrived at the Committee at 9.30 am I noticed that he was not present.

Phil Willis: I am delighted that we were unable to take this group of amendments at the end of Tuesday's sitting when Members were understandably tired after an exceptional debate on curricular issues. Hansard will show that it was indeed a good debate.
 The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) does not appear to be as concerned about teachers' pay and conditions as my colleagues and I. This group of amendments is intended to probe the Government about where they see the disapplication of pay and conditions. We accept that the current national system of pay and conditions for teachers is not perfect. None of the teacher associations would accept that it is perfect. Each, if asked to redesign the system, would do so in a different way. 
 We must also accept that since the introduction of the School Teachers' Pay Review Body—by the previous Government, working practices in our schools have changed. I say in good spirit to the Minister that pay and conditions should be considered extremely seriously. We believe that there should be a full inquiry into teachers' pay and conditions, including regional variations, as there was in Scotland. That would address the enormous problem of teacher recruitment and retention in some of the most difficult and challenging areas of the country. The way in which the Government are approaching a change to teachers' pay and conditions in the Bill is really quite insulting to the teaching profession. It has the potential to cause a great deal of damage nationally, locally and within individual schools. 
 Amendment No. 33 makes it clear that we do not want to see changes in teachers' pay and conditions approached by stealth. We believe that the provisions under this part of clause 6 are excessive. During the previous sitting, the Minister talked about innovation and earned autonomy in schools, which could apply to as many as 50 per cent. of schools bearing in mind the Government's target of schools with an average standard of five A to Cs, or as many as 75 per cent. if we take the Prime Minister's target in his statement on failing schools as being those which do not achieve 25 per cent. A to Cs. 
 If 75 per cent. of schools are able to opt out of the current arrangements for teachers' pay and conditions and set up their own, either as a school or with individual teachers, we will have to question the point of the STPRB and of the current legislation as individual schools will be able to override the will of Parliament and the STPRB. This probing amendment seeks the Government's response to those issues. Are the Government still committed to a national framework for teachers, pay and conditions? 
 Amendment No. 34 also raises an issue about teachers' professional development.The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) is not in Committee today, but I am sure that he would agree that development was non-existent for many years. From the time I qualified in the 19th century to when I left the profession, there was no emphasis on developing me as an individual or a teacher. It was as if one became a good head teacher simply by being in a school for a long time. That is obviously nonsense. I compliment the previous Government and the current one for placing greater emphasis on the professional development of staff, which is important. 
 However, there is a contradiction in that raising standards involves raising the standard of teachers. One cannot happen without the other. There is often a divisive debate between producer and consumer interests, but they are the same. Patients are treated well if they have a good doctor. Nursing standards on wards increase if the nurses are good. The same applies to teachers. The more we invest in them, value what they do and develop their professional expertise, the better the deal for young people in the classroom. 
 In clause 118, which reinforces the 1991 Act, there is a clear Government statement that professional development is crucial to teachers, which we support. The Secretary of State established national standards for good teaching, and the previous Secretary of State introduced threshold arrangements. The Government appear to be committed to pursuing performance-related pay in schools and have introduced a category of teachers in advanced schools. That shows that they are committed to raising standards by setting standard targets and thresholds to which teachers can aspire. The Liberal Democrats support the general thrust of the measures, if not the mechanisms. 
 However, there is a contradiction in clause 6. It appears that individual schools can simply exempt themselves from those standards and pay teachers according to the market rate in schools in general. There is no reference to the maintenance of standards in the disapplication of teachers' pay and conditions. Amendment No. 34 probes the Government's commitment to access for all teachers to professional development, training and assessment that meet national professional standards. Will we go back to the bad old days when individual institutions were allowed autonomy in those matters and classes were left with teachers' sub-standard performances? 
 Amendment No. 79 relates to the retention of negotiating rights in schools with earned autonomy and goes to the heart of the new powers that the Secretary of State envisages for such schools. I would have though that a Labour Government would feel strongly about that, given the performance of the previous Tory Government and Labour Members' vitriolic attacks on them during the establishment of grant-maintained status. Like many members of the Committee, I remember when the previous Government unilaterally removed teachers' negotiating rights from them. The School Teachers' Pay Review Body, was set up as a deliberate way to circumvent direct negotiations between teachers and their employers; there is now an intermediary body. The shadow Secretaries of State waxed lyrical in opposition to that proposal at the time, yet the Government not only do nothing about it but propose to go even further in removing teachers' negotiating rights. 
 I do not argue that schools will necessarily give teachers worse pay or conditions, as that is highly unlikely given the market situation and the shortage of teachers in most parts of the country. However, the need to recruit and retain teachers will mean that some schools, with their new-found freedom and their additional £500,00 or other pots of money for having specialist status, will be able to offer attractive packages to recruit and retain teachers, which will distort the local marketplace. Does the Minister want a free for all in the market for teachers? If so, my point on Second Reading must be addressed. How do those schools that do not get the additional resources for specialist school status, which are often in the poorest parts of the country—across the road in Lambeth, for example——attract the teachers they need? The Secretary of State made it clear that only half the 
 schools in Britain will have specialist status by 2005. How do the rest of them retain teachers when they have to compete with schools that can disapply terms and conditions and offer enhanced packages? 
 I visited a primary school in Lambeth last week, where a significant number of the staff were not professional teachers in the terms of the Department for Education and Science regulations but young people who had been brought over from Australia and New Zealand. They were doing a fantastic job, but they were the only staff that the head teacher could attract to the area. However, in Harrogate, for example, it is relatively easy to attract high-quality teachers because of the environment, the nature of the schools and the living conditions in my constituency. 
 A newly qualified teacher in a school in Westminster has a starting salary of £17,001, a recruitment and retention bonus of £5,085, and £3,000 inner London weighting, a total of £25,086, which is a good starting salary and a reasonable market rate. However, a teacher in the same school, who has been teaching for five years and is on point 7 of the scale, gets the inner London weighting of £3,000 but ends up on the lower salary of £25,035. The Minister must address that issue, because it causes division in the staff room; the school must try to retain the teacher who has been working in the school for five years. A teacher in Westminster who has been teaching for three years, who is on point 5 on the scale, with a management point for additional responsibilities, would end up with a salary of £24,060, £1,000 less than a newly qualified teacher with no experience starting at the same school. 
 The Minister must come clean on the Government's thinking on this part of the Bill. One problem that we all recognise is the retention of teachers after three years. The drop out at that time is massive. If the proposals will make that worse, the Minister must think carefully about how he applies the regulations pertaining to the clause. 
 The golden hellos and shortage bonuses that some teachers receive give them an advantage over those who completed their postgraduate training two or three years ago, or took the bachelor of education route. That is not a political point; hon. Members are aware that those inequities cause problems in staff rooms. 
 The clause allows an application without considering its consequences. It will not prevent a teacher negotiating with his or her agents on non-statutory aspects of pay and conditions. Amendment No. 79 would ensure that bargaining must be collective. We would prefer clearer guidance in the national framework. If the Minister insists on advancing the Bill, we urge him to insert the right of the whole staff, rather than individuals, to engage in negotiations. That would fulfil the Government's commitment in its White Paper, ''Schools Achieving Success''. Paragraph 5.18 states: 
 ''We will allow schools flexibility over some elements of teachers' pay and conditions, for example to provide even greater recruitment and retention incentives, or to allow schools to agree 
with their staff a more flexible working day or year in return for some reward. But important elements of teachers' pay and conditions will remain common to all teachers: this will not lead to individual contracts.'' 
Will the Minister explain why that commitment does not match the provisions? 
 Disapplying terms and conditions has not worked. Four years ago, the Government created education action zones, which the Minister has conveniently buried. He will know, although he was not in the Department at the time, that one of the huge problems facing EAZs—out of which interesting ideas emerged—was disapplying pay and conditions. The vast majority did not do that. Their first negotiation with the local education authority—which remained the employer—and teacher associations was to retain pay and conditions agreements. They recognised how divisive disapplying would be. 
 The previous Government introduced a disapplying proposal for grant-maintained schools, for which they provided extra money. One of the aims at that time was to break the teaching unions and break their control over pay and conditions bargaining. Of the 1,000 schools that opted out under grant-maintained legislation, only three used the provisions. That was with a Government who actively supported them in the teeth of opposition from professional associations.

Stephen Timms: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify in which direction he is arguing? Is he arguing that the freedoms will be widely used, which will cause a lot of damage, or that they will hardly ever be used, so there will be no problem?

Phil Willis: I do not think that that there is a contradiction. The Government seem determined to travel down the road of encouraging individual pay and conditions bargaining on a school-by-school, if not teacher-by-teacher, basis. First, there is little evidence from either the current or previous Governments to show that schools want that. Secondly, if the Minister is determined to go ahead with the plan, there could be incredibly divisive consequences for schools. I have tried to point that out, and I am sorry if the Minister cannot grasp those two concepts. They are important: there is no evidence in favour of doing what the Government want to do, and the Minister will be creating an open book for teachers' pay and conditions. The Government want to impose a Thatcherite proposal on our school system while we are desperately trying to recruit and retain teachers in some of the most challenging situations. I ask the Minister to please think again.
 Amendment No. 52 is simple and asks the Minister for guidance on what can be disapplied and what cannot. If he envisages a free-for-all, let him tell us this morning so that we know where he stands. We believe that any disapplication under earned autonomy should guarantee that, first, the main pay scale continues as agreed under the STPRB; secondly, the threshold remains, so that the situation does not change for those who have gained their £2,000 
 payment or are aspiring to get it; and thirdly, the differentials between the main scale and the leadership group, and between the leadership group and head teacher, remain. If we do not have those differentials, we will not have a career structure, which, to be fair, is one of the positive changes that the Government have introduced over the past four years. To lose it would be very sad. 
 This is an important group of amendments, which go to the heart of the Government's intentions for pay and conditions. I hope that the Minister will be circumspect and frank in his response.

Graham Brady: I shall be brief, but the issues dealt with in the amendments are important. They strike at the heart of how far we believe in or have reservations about autonomy for schools. They will start to open up some interesting divisions in thinking between different Committee members. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough will be relieved to know that the period of consensus that we enjoyed on Tuesday will perhaps begin to fragment.

Phil Willis: Hallelujah.

Graham Brady: As the hon. Gentleman said, where the freedom was available to schools under grant maintained status, particularly on pay and conditions, it was rarely used. In itself, that might be one element that the Minister will advance to support an argument that this is a safe and reasonable flexibility and freedom to allow. It would be available to schools where it is required, but may not be expected to become a universal practice. The Government have already demonstrated that they are prepared to differentiate teachers' pay and conditions and offer golden hellos, student loan write-offs and special payments for certain categories. Those responses are necessary to overcome difficulties in teacher recruitment and retention, and Her Majesty's Opposition support that more flexible approach.
 The section on so-called earned autonomy provides for a form of autonomy that, although far from sufficient, is an appropriate form of autonomy for schools. The wording of amendment No. 33 contains a non sequitur. The hon. Gentleman advances the argument that 
 ''The Secretary of State shall exercise his powers under this section with regard to the desirability of maintaining an effective national framework of pay and conditions''— 
this is the part that I do not think follows— 
''so that all maintained schools are able to recruit, retain and motivate sufficient teachers of the required quality.'' 
At present, we have a national framework of pay and conditions. However, schools in the maintained sector are not able to recruit, retain and motivate sufficient teachers of the required quality. That is precisely the difficulty that the Government face, and we all support their best endeavours to resolve it. I have grave reservations about the hon. Gentleman's wish to circumscribe the autonomy of schools. 
 In amendment No. 34, the hon. Gentleman places a duty on the Secretary of State to exercise his powers 
''so as to promote the professional development of teachers''. 
 How can that be reconciled with a belief in autonomy for schools or a belief that schools should be free to innovate? Schools should be free to pursue their own professional development policies and practices. They should be encouraged and given resources, and they may be given guidance, but it would be entirely wrong to take that freedom away and put it in the hands of the Secretary of State. 
jf1ÝAmendment No. 79 seeks to require that pay negotiations should be conducted 
 ''between relevant bodies and representatives'' 
when pay and condition provisions have been suspended. The hon. Gentleman commented on the previous Conservative Government's attitude to collective bargaining. It is telling that his amendment does not require negotiation with the individuals concerned, which would have been a slightly more balanced approach. 
 What would be the effect of the amendment in practice? We do not oppose proper and sensible pay negotiations, whether in the public or private sector, which involve employee representatives, if that is the wish of the employees concerned. However, the position of the individual must be taken into account; it is appropriate for individual employees to engage in such discussions. 
 Furthermore, I am concerned that the amendment may have the unintended consequence of requiring collective negotiation in all cases. That would have a limiting effect on negotiations with members of staff who are in the leadership group or who need particular incentives, perhaps for recruitment in difficult areas. 
 I do not wish to speak at length about the amendment, but it is important to flag up our genuine concerns about the hon. Gentleman's recommendations. I suspect that with this group of amendments, we are leaning a little more towards the Minister than the hon. Gentleman.

Stephen Timms: I bid you a warm welcome to the Chair, Mr. Griffiths.
 I can confirm that we remain committed to the national framework. The STPRB has done a good job and will report again in a few weeks. I agree that schoolteachers' pay and conditions play an important part in recruitment, retention and motivation, as amendment No. 33 suggests. That is why we have implemented innovations, such as the threshold that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough mentioned, and why we have given schools additional flexibility to pay allowances to teachers with particular responsibilities and to set pay ranges for members of the leadership group. Schools have significant flexibility over pay that they did not have before, and we have provided them with more resources to support that flexibility. That is in existing schoolteachers' pay and conditions documents. 
 What do we want to allow in schools that is not permitted at present? More schools should have a greater opportunity to consider more closely what could be done to meet their needs or circumstances. Eligible schools may want to make minor or larger 
 changes, and they will do that within their normal budgets. It is worth saying that there will be no additional funding for schools with earned autonomy. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that, at least implicitly. The changes or variations that schools introduce will be within their existing budgets. 
 The hon. Gentleman suggested that that power would be taken up exclusively or mainly by schools with specialist status, using their additional resources. However, it is not just specialist schools that have access to additional resources. Our programme for schools in challenging circumstances gives extra resources to some 500 schools that face the biggest challenges. For the reasons to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded, they may be precisely the schools that need to be able to take advantage of the extra flexibility that the provisions will give. 
 I imagine that the school that the hon. Gentleman visited last week was in an excellence in cities area. Other schools will be in excellence clusters throughout the country. They will have access to additional resources.

Phil Willis: I am grateful for the Minister's comments. Two weeks ago, I visited a school in Bradford that has STPRB money, excellence in cities money and some deprivation grants, because it is in an incredibly deprived area. I asked the head what she did with all the money, and she replied, ''We spend it purely on supply cover, because we can't get teachers.'' The school was spending almost £250,000 on such cover.

Stephen Timms: I do not know the circumstances of that school, but I put it to the hon. Gentleman that it may be the kind of school that could secure permanent staff by varying their terms, conditions and pay. That is a good example of variation that could be extremely helpful.
 I want to deal with a point made by the hon. Gentleman this morning and towards the end of Tuesday's sitting. His thinking on the issue is slightly different from ours. I envisage that, at least initially, the proportion of schools likely to qualify for earned autonomy will be nearer 10 per cent. than the 50 or 75 per cent. that he suggested. As the White Paper says just after the section quoted by the hon. Gentleman, we expect the proportion of eligible schools to grow as more schools raise their standards and can meet the criteria that will be defined.

Graham Brady: The Minister is giving the Committee some interesting insights into the Government's thinking. If he expects that around 10 per cent. of schools will initially qualify for earned autonomy, how rapidly does he expect the figure to increase? Within how many years will we reach the 50 per cent. mark, or the 75 per cent. mark to which the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough referred?

Stephen Timms: It is hard to be too definitive about the rate at which schools will pass the thresholds that will be set, but I anticipate a steady increase in the number of schools benefiting from earned autonomy. I hope
 that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give details at this stage about how rapidly that will happen.
 In principle, schools should have maximum flexibility. We intend to require that only a few matters remain core requirements; these will include the performance threshold, performance management and teachers' professional duties. We do not intend to require schools to retain national pay scales or working-time provisions if they do not wish to do so. All teachers at schools where changes are proposed will of course be fully consulted. 
 Amendments Nos. 30, 33 and 52 would be so limiting that in practice few changes would be introduced. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said that such provisions have not been widely taken up, but the additional procedures that he wants to be set around them would make them even less likely to be taken up. I will explore later some of the reasons why they have not been taken up in the past. The hon. Gentleman's approach would not be the right one. If schools want to make broad changes, they should be allowed to do so without too much bureaucratic process being imposed on them.

Phil Willis: This is an important matter. The Minister said that the threshold payment would be retained but national pay scales would not. How can one get to the threshold if one does not have national pay scales? What would be the mechanism for passing a threshold?

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman asks a fair question. We will set that out in due course. I give members of the Committee the commitment, as I have given commitments earlier in our proceedings, that we will come forward with proposals on that before the Bill leaves the House. If schools want to make broad changes, they should be able to do so without having to go through too much bureaucratic process. They should also be permitted to make small changes if they prefer. Attempts to introduce such powers in the past have required setting aside the entire contract and renegotiating from scratch. That will not be required in this case. It will be possible to vary a minor detail of the contract, and that may often occur in practice. The Secretary of State does not intend to require approval of a school's proposals. Our best schools should be at the leading edge of change so that the whole system can learn from the experience of the best schools. The amendments would prevent that.
 I can well understand concerns about the possible effect on teacher recruitment at a neighbouring school, but I emphasise that no extra funding will be provided to schools with earned autonomy for that purpose; such funding will come from existing resources. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said that for the last couple of years schools have been permitted to pay an additional recruitment and retention bonus of up to £5,000 a year. That has not caused difficulties such as he envisaged. The recruitment and retention allowances can be made 
 available not just to new teachers but to teachers already in post—that refers to the ''retention'' part of the title. It is for governing bodies to decide how best to apply those allowances. In our experience, that has not led to the problems that he described. The allowance can be up to £5,000 a year, which is quite a substantial sum. If we were going to run into the difficulties that he envisaged, we would have done so by now.

Phil Willis: If the Minister has not done the research he should perhaps do it now. He will find that in a significant number of London schools where recruitment and retention bonuses are available, heads and governors have spread the money across the whole staff rather than give it to individual teachers. Does not that tell him something?

Stephen Timms: It tells me that governing bodies should have the freedom to make that change, which they would under these provisions. A school operating earned autonomy over elements of the curriculum, pay and conditions will not lose eligibility for funding for continuing professional development. There is no need for that requirement to be set out in the Bill as proposed in amendment No. 34. Professional development continues to be a key concern for us, as the hon. Gentleman rightly acknowledged, and it will become increasingly important.
 On amendment No. 79, we have the firm intention of allowing schools to contemplate making changes with as few difficulties as possible. That is why we do not intend to require the Secretary of State's approval for change. As I said on Tuesday, we want the process to be simple and unbureaucratic. I think the Committee accepted that the Secretary of State should, in general, approve proposals under the innovation clauses, but that earned autonomy should mean just that. The amdt would clearly be a move in the opposite direction.

David Laws: Before the Minister wraps up his comments on the clause, could he say a little more about where he gets the estimate of 10 per cent. of schools initially having earned autonomy? What underlying assumptions does he have for that figure?

Stephen Timms: I am not saying that it will be precisely 10 per cent, but it will be nearer 10 per cent. than the 50 or 75 per cent. figure envisaged by his hon. Friend. That will be a function of the performance criteria that are set. We envisage consulting on proposals that are likely to lead to a proportion of schools being eligible that is closer to the figure I indicated than to those to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
 We fully recognise the right of teachers at any school where such proposals are made to be fully consulted. After the governing body has made proposals— teachers are, of course, involved on governing bodies—consultation will be a statutory requirement. That is in clause 7. Amendment No. 79 would require a formal negotiating process around any changes, however small. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West made that point. That would slow the 
 process down and make it much more burdensome for schools. In practice, it would prevent much of the innovation that we all want to make possible. 
 Once any change to a school's pay system is in place, teachers will have their general employment law rights in respect of subsequent periodic changes to their pay. As the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough acknowledged, no governing body will propose changes that will be detrimental to teachers. The last thing that schools will want is for teachers to vote with their feet. It is appropriate to use negotiation as an entirely permissible approach. It is a matter of how the exercise is conducted, but legally the governing body will need to have the final say. 
 Let me give a couple of examples of how earned autonomy might be applied. There are some examples in the White Paper. Schools will be able to retain the basic national framework, with its pay scales and annual pay awards. I suspect that most will choose to do so, because they will not want to renegotiate the whole contract, which was necessary when such flexibility was previously available. However, they will be able to make adjustments such as paying long-service or team bonuses or introducing flexitime working in return for a new pay allowance. I hope that with that explanation and reassurance, the Committee will feel able to reject the amendments.

Phil Willis: This has been a most illuminating exchange, but at the end of it we are no clearer about the Government's position than we were at the beginning. I have never heard a less convincing argument from a Minister. We are debating one of the most crucial issues that will affect the English and Welsh teaching force, and all we heard was waffle. On Tuesday night, when we debated earned autonomy, the Minister gave the impression that vast swathes of schools would be able to get earned autonomy. We were then told that only 10 per cent. will get it, but the Minister does not know the criteria on which it will be awarded to that 10 per cent.; we will be told that later. The Minister made it clear that he has gone down exactly the same road as the Conservative Government. He is now proposing grant-maintained schools with knobs on.

Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Phil Willis: I will in a moment, but I am just getting excited. [Interruption.] I get excited very easily; I have a sad life.
 Every member of the Committee can tell the Minister which schools will be in that 10 per cent. They will be those with beacon status—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Epping Forest says from a sedentary position that they used to be grant-maintained schools. She is right; many of them were. They were good schools, and I do not demur from or criticise that fact. We were led in the White Paper and on Second Reading to believe that huge swathes of schools would get earned autonomy, but are now told that only 10 per cent. will get it. We know exactly which schools they 
 will be—those that already have beacon or specialist status. How can a Minister tell those schools that they may have beacon status this week, but next week they will not be fit for earned autonomy? That is absolute nonsense. 
 I will give way to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). I have calmed down.

Andrew Turner: The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough does not have to apologise for his perception about the direction in which the Bill will lead schools. He is right, and that is why I support so much of it. However, I am concerned that the Minister has revealed that only about 10 per cent. of schools will get earned autonomy, which is miserly. I hope that he will tell us how he reached that figure.
 That congratulation does not undermine my criticism of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. He criticised the Minister for being vague and woolly—normally a characteristic of his party—but he cannot possibly believe that piling bureaucracy upon bureaucracy, requirement upon requirement, and additional clause upon additional clause will make it easier for teachers, schools and governors to achieve what the Government, the Conservatives and, occasionally, the Liberal Democrats say they want to achieve with the Bill.

Irene Adams: Order. May I ask Members to make briefer interventions?

Phil Willis: Absolutely, Mr. Griffiths, and more pertinent ones.
 I know that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight took a seat from the Liberal Democrats at the last election, with which we are still coming to terms, but we are now on to a serious issue. I do not introduce amendments to score points. These are fundamental issues that affect our teachers, and should be addressed in a serious and businesslike way. The Minister's responses have been shameful in their lack of detail. He will live to regret saying that 90 per cent. of schools will be unfit for earned autonomy. 
 The hon. Members for Altrincham and Sale, West and for Isle of Wight nailed their colours to the mast. The idea that teaching is just about individuals is nonsense. A beacon school or any other school of quality has a corporate body. A good school is not just a collection of individuals, it is a group of people who work together. That is what makes a school special. Once people are treated as competitive individuals in pay and conditions, that essence is lost.

Chris Grayling: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise the stresses placed on the teaching profession and heads—especially in the south-east—by the huge cost of living disparities between Surrey and areas such as his? As long as the education profession is fixed so rigidly in national structures, it will be hard for head teachers to overcome that. I echo his concern about the number of schools able to secure earned autonomy, but he should accept that greater flexibility in national pay and conditions is one way of solving the teaching crisis in the south-east.
 Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman makes a sound point, as he has so often done during our proceedings. I agree with the first part. Schools, not just those in the south-east, find it difficult to recruit and retain teachers because of high living and travel costs. The Government have failed to tackle that issue, which affects all public sector workers. Doctors, nurses, emergency service workers, social workers and care workers all suffer because of that problem. All parties have got to get to grips with that. I would welcome a Government White or Green Paper, so we can debate the issues.
 The Bill does not address that problem. The Minister has disingenuously said that all schools will receive the same funding. If schools receive only little pots of money for recruitment and retention, the problem of high living costs will not be addressed. The Minister has failed to say that his ambition in London and the south-east is that half the schools will be specialist by the end of this Parliament, and receive £0.5 million extra. What benefits will the schools that do not get earned autonomy receive? It is no good talking about excellence in cities money or city academy money. The private sector is not prepared to put money into schools, as education action zones showed. 
 Our research has shown that half the lowest achieving schools in Britain receive no money from any of those pots. They are denied it, and the Minister is not addressing that. Overall, schools need more money. They do not want little bits and pieces—[Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the Under-Secretary of State says that they are getting more money. They will, if the Chancellor happens to have a big pocket one day and gives out money on a three-yearly basis. That is no way of underpinning—[Interruption.]

Irene Adams: Order.

Phil Willis: I am sorry Mr. Griffiths. It is disgraceful.
 We are talking about schools getting money through their standard spending assessment and about £4 billion from the Secretary of State's slush fund—I am sorry; I should have said standards fund. How can schools plan when the money can be taken away at any time? If the Minister were serious about giving schools more autonomy, he would ensure that their basic budget was secure and larger, and that they had the freedom to work within it. In that case, some of what is proposed would make sense; it does not do so because the Government do not trust schools and local authorities to use the money in that way. 
 The Minister said that schools have significant flexibility to use their resources in different ways. I accept that; I accept, too, that from 1988 onwards local financial management of schools gave head teachers greater autonomy to use money and to vire it within various headings. However, if only 10 per cent. will get earned autonomy and they already have significant flexibility, what does the Minister envisage? Nothing in the Bill or regulations gives us any idea about the extra freedoms that schools will be given. 
 The Minister said that the schools with earned autonomy could abandon the national pay scales, but he then said, ''Ah, we will have to think about how to get to threshold payments''. The reality is that after the first year, all teachers will be given the threshold money according to earned autonomy, because there will be no scales at that point. It will be extra money that the Secretary of State will provide over and above anything else, unless he wraps it all into standard spending assessment or the new formula. 
 These are important amendments; I accept that there are differences between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, but I never believed that a Labour Government would be supported by Tory Front-Bench Members on teachers' pay and conditions. It shows how right-wing the Government have become and how all the talk about giving freedom to teachers and raising morale is nothing but hot air. We shall divide the Committee on the amendments.

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman misrepresented some of what I said. I shall not respond to him point by point, but I do not agree with his view, which I sum up as being, ''If it was good enough for the 1950s, it should be good enough for us.'' We must make progress if standards are to rise substantially across the maintained system. It is right for change in secondary education to be led by our best schools as the Bill envisages. As standards rise, more schools will have access to the autonomy that we propose.
 What is proposed is completely different from the grant-maintained scheme, especially because there is no additional funding, which was a key aspect of grant-maintained status; the hon. Gentleman well knows the processes by which costs in different areas are addressed through the funding system. 
 The threshold assessment will be available to teachers; the threshold grant will be available and the pay uplift will be added to the pay that the teacher received when he or she applied. I hope that the Committee will not support the amendment.

Graham Brady: I want, briefly, to emphasise that although Her Majesty's Opposition do not necessarily consider the autonomy proposed by the Government to be sufficient for schools, we support the principle of autonomy. I shall urge my hon. Friends to oppose the amendments and, in the constructive spirit in which we have approached the Bill, to vote with the Government.
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 14.

Bailey, Mr. AdrianBrady, Mr. GrahamFlint, CarolineFrancis, Dr. HywelGrayling, ChrisHeppell, Mr. JohnKumar, Dr. AshokLaing, Mrs EleanorLewis, Mr. IvanO'Brien, Mr. StephenPurnell, JamesTimms, Mr. StephenTouhig, Mr. DonTurner, Mr. Andrew
Question accordingly negatived.

Graham Brady: On a point of order, Mr. Griffiths. We spent approximately an hour debating the last group of amendments, during which time Back-Bench Members had no opportunity to contribute. I make no criticism whatever of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough; it was important that the Committee direct its attention to the matters in his amendments. Although the Minister and I made brief contributions, we are 24 minutes from adjournment and from the point that the Government's restrictive timetable sets for conclusion of the first 12 clauses, and we have not yet concluded consideration of clause 6. By my count, that leaves 6 clauses and 37 amendments to discuss in 23 minutes.
 Throughout our proceedings, the Government have commendably stressed their desire to help the Committee ensure that we have time to consider the Bill adequately. I welcome that. In that context, would it be possible and appropriate to convene a meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee to consider where the knife should fall in our proceedings and whether it is possible to carry out our duty of scrutinising the remaining 6 clauses in the group?

Irene Adams: Obviously, it does not fall to me to make such a decision. I would need an indication from Government Members that they are prepared to reconsider the programme resolution. It would not be helpful to take five or 10 minutes for a Programming Sub-Committee meeting, but to make no progress. I would need an indication that it would be worth stopping the debate for a few minutes to try to reach an agreement on providing more time to discuss the items on the agenda.

John Heppell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Griffiths. We are not against stopping for the Programming Sub-Committee, but we would probably resist reprogramming to give more time up to clause 12. We changed the original programme by adding an extra sitting for debate up to clause 12, which meant that the rest of the programme was truncated. Although the Opposition had not requested more time, we had an extra sitting on Tuesday night, which seemed to slow down progress rather than speed it up.
 We are anxious not to delay progress but, if we were to reconvene the Programming Sub-Committee, it would be to discuss extra time for later clauses rather than for these ones. 
 Mr. Brady: Further to that point of order, Mr. Griffiths. The Government have repeatedly said that they wish to be helpful. We—I think I speak also for the Liberal Democrats—have said at every stage that many of the Bill's most controversial and important elements are at the beginning. It is therefore hardly surprising that the Committee has felt it necessary to devote a certain amount of time to discussing the early clauses. It would be deeply unfortunate if the Committee did not do its duty in scrutinising the legislation by not looking at a number of important clauses at all. I remind Labour Members that the Minister has frequently remarked how constructive and helpful our debates have been. We have made every effort to make progress. I ask those on the Government Benches to reconsider. If they do not, we shall fail in our duty as a Committee.

Irene Adams: We are in danger of having a prolonged debate on this issue. Does the Committee intend to debate the remaining clauses in this group within the programme motion, so that there is less time to deal with later clauses?

Graham Brady: My concern is that the Committee will have paid no attention to six new clauses and 37 amendments tabled by the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats. The substance of my request is that we should be given the flexibility to debate those amendments, rather than having a guillotine imposed in 20 minutes' time, which will prevent any discussion.

John Heppell: May I try to be helpful? We tried to design a flexible programme that would give the Opposition the chance to choose what they wanted to spend most of the time debating and, obviously, to spend less time debating matters they considered less important. What we do not want is more time for everything. In trying to be flexible—we have the Programming Sub-Committee now—we shall seek to reach a compromise to everyone's satisfaction.

Irene Adams: As a result of that kind offer from the Government, I have to suspend the Committee, which means that I must request that the Gallery be cleared. Sub-Committee members can participate in the debate. Other Members can stay here, but they cannot participate.
 Sitting suspended. 
 On resuming—

Irene Adams: I am pleased to say that an agreement has been reached.
 Ordered, 
 That the Order of the Committee [11 December] relating to programming be amended as follows— 
 (1) in the third column for the 3rd sitting, ''11.25 am'' is omitted; 
 (2) the entries for the 4th, 5th and 6th sittings are omitted and the following words inserted: 
 4thClauses 1 to 12 (so far as not previously concluded)-- 5thClauses 1 to 12 (so far as not previously concluded)1 pm 6thClauses 13 to 18, Schedule 1,  Clauses 19 to 35, Schedule 2,Clauses 36 to 38, Schedule 3, Clauses 39 to 4310 pm

Graham Brady: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 5, line 9, at end insert—
 '(2A) Regulations containing the prescribed criteria relating to the performance of, or the quality of leadership in, the school must be approved by resolution of each House of Parliament in England or by agreement of the National Assembly in Wales'.
 I thank Committee members for a reasonable discussion and a reasonable conclusion. I hope that we now have an adequate opportunity to examine the important issues that the Bill raises. 
 In the spirit of co-operation that I mentioned, I do not intend to speak to the amendment for long, as the arguments are well known by both sides of the Committee. The question is whether we believe that all discretion and decision-making powers should be in the hands of the Secretary of State or divested elsewhere. The Government anticipate that the performance and quality of leadership criteria will be among the measures for approval of autonomy for schools. My amendment would take those criteria out of the hands of the Secretary of State, preventing a Minister from taking an arbitrary decision, and would instead ensure that the House of Commons and the National Assembly for Wales had to approve them. 
 Earlier in our proceedings, the Minister openly said that the Government's policy was, to a large extent, to move away from primary legislation and towards secondary legislation in decision making. However, 
 the Bill contains many powers that are simply taken by Ministers without even the approval of secondary legislation. 
 I am proposing a worthwhile improvement, which would ensure that democratically elected Members of Parliament and Assembly Members in Wales agreed the criteria to decide on earned autonomy for schools. Those criteria would be open to debate and scrutiny; the Secretary of State would not take the decision behind closed doors.

Stephen Timms: The negative procedure is right in these circumstances. The criteria used to judge schools' autonomy will be clear and consistent, and will be set out in regulations. They will include measures of the improvements that schools make and the value that they add, using the new value-added data that are becoming available. Thus schools that are succeeding in difficult circumstances, as well as those that are doing well in absolute terms, will be able to qualify.
 Any Member who disapproves of the criteria that we propose in regulations under the negative procedure can trigger a debate on them. The criteria are not so significant as to warrant the time of the House that would be required under the affirmative procedure, with a debate on every occasion. 
 There will be wide consultation on the regulations. As I said, I shall bring them before the House before the Bill leaves it, which is a satisfactory way to proceed.

Graham Brady: The Minister suggested that the negative procedure allows any Member to trigger a debate. That may be so, but we do not always automatically get a debate. Surely, the House and the National Assembly for Wales should be able to debate orders.

Stephen Timms: What I am suggesting is that the normal processes by which such matters are managed are appropriate.
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.